Oskar the reason MS isn't rated on 1700 or 1800 points or however good he is.. Is because he only plays one tournament a year and that's country week. Where he can only gain points to a certain level which isn't as good as he is.
Then he takes inactive penalties each 6 months because he's had no results in the system. Which over many years, leads him to have the low rating he has. If his pennant results went in, even if he never losses a match he will at least hang onto the points he gets at country week, which over the time means he would have been on 1700+ if pennant results would have been in. This is true for almost the entire Ballarat country week team players.
I've been entering the results for my club for a couple of seasons, even though there's not many players I feel like it's a very important thing to do so I'll keep doing it. One problem I have here is that the majority of players are taking inactive penalties even though they are active, our seasons dates are outside the cut off points for not getting a penalty.. I need to have a word to someone about that because everyone is going to end up with half the rating they should be on. Carbonman I had read a little about the Elo system and it seems like just about perfect, making the change sounds like it would be a fairly big deal and probably come across some opposition though.
In the end if the current system was used how it's supposed to be used, most of the problems would go away without changing anything. I agree If pennant results were given more weight to help blend Juniors with Seniors and Vets and everyone entered results. Even the problem of no seniors entering senior events might go away